>> i'm chris wallace, the sprint to election day begins with the final presidential debate. as obama and romney face off one last time on foreign policy, we'll have our own debate on the terrorist strike in libya, upheaval in syria. development senator dick durbin versus lindsey graham. durbin and graham only on "fox news sunday." then it's been a roller-coaster ride in the polls. we'll talk numbers with the man in charge of gallup, the granddaddy of polling firms, frank newport.

>> we'll ask our sunday panel what to expect in the race to the finish line. from a a tense debate to laughs over dinner, it was quite a week on the trail. and hello again from fox news in washington. with 16 days 'til the election president obama and 0 governor romney meet one last time monday night for a debate on foreign policy. we want to preview the issues with a debate of our own. dick durbin joins us from his home state of illinois. a top republican on foreign policy, senator lindsey graham is in his home state of south carolina. let's start with breaking news. a report in today's "new york times" that iran and the u.s. agreed in principal to one-on-one talks about iran's nuclear program. the white house said last night they have not agreed to talks but that the u.s., the administration, is open to the

idea. senator graham, let me start with you, what do you think of one-on-one talks with iran and what do you make of the timing, two weeks before the election? >> i think the iranians are trying to take advantage of our election cycle to continue to talk. as we talk with the iranians, whether it's barley or -- bilaterally or unilaterally they continue to enrich. we talked with them in moscow, we talked with them in bagged. they continue to enrichment the time for talking is over. we should be demanding transparency and access to the nuclear program. they've doubled their centrifuges so i think this is a ploy by the iranians. i hope we're talking to the israelis and as we continue to talk, they continue to enrich and try to break apart the coalition. >> what do you think the timing of the story coming out, one assumes from u.s. sources, just two weeks before the election?

>> well, i think it's pretty obvious they're trying to continue a dialogue using our election cycle in a clever way. i hope we don't take the bait. we had a chance in 2009 to speak up during the iranian revolution and we did nothing. i would like to talk with israel before we make decisions with iran. >> senator durbin, israel's embassador to the united states says in the "new york times" article israel should not be rewarded with one-on-one talks with the u.s. but instead should get tougher sanctions. >> the president has put together a strong global coalition imposing sanctions on the iranians including not only europe, which made a dramatic impact on the iranian economy but russia as well. it's had impact. this month in october, the currency in iran declined 40% in

value. there's unrest in the streets and leaders are feeling it. that's what we wanted to do. this is an indication, a clear indication, the sanctions regime that president obama's put together with israel and many nations around the world is putting pressure on iran to sit down and acknowledge they cannot have a nuclear weapon. it's a positive step forward. >> briefly, why, if we have this information coalition, why not continue talks in the t5 plus one, why one-on-one instead? >> there are many options. i'm not saying one is better than the other. if direct negotiations are a path toward a peaceful resolution with iran getting up on the notion of nuclear weapon, pursue it. if meeting collectively is better, pursue that. as nicholas burns said, it would be unconscionable not to meet

and talk. we don't want to drive into the brick wall of war without speaking to the iranians. >> turning to libya -- >> can i add? >> i'm sorry. >> canned add the purpose of sanctions is stop the iranians from building a nuclear program. during the four years we've talked to them they quadrupled the amount of uranium. we talk, they enrichment it needs to stop and end it before it gets out of hand. >> let's turn to libya. the question is to whether or not the president and his administration could have done more beforehand to protect those four americans killed in benghazi on the anniversary of september 11. we know there were eight attacks against western interests in benghazi in the six months before the attack and we now know u.s. embassador chris stevens sent repeated memos to washington, even on the day he was killed, asking for more

security. senator graham, is it conceivable that president obama didn't know how dangerous benghazi was for americans? >> no. no administration's going to send the president of the united states into the public arena not telling him about an attack in april and june. what if the president were asked by a reporter in june, tell me about the consulate in attack in benghazi, he said i don't know. i find that inconceivable. this is going to be a case study, studied for years of a breakdown of national security at every level. failed presidential leadership. the benghazi-lib libya license consulate was a death trap. we asked additional security and was denied because we wanted to normalize relationships with a nonexistent government. we should have closed that consulate long before september 11 or heavily

reinforced it and i put that on the president of the united states. this was a national security break down before, during and after the attack. >> senator durbin, we agree the president doesn't get into the weeds and decide the security level in benghazi but given all these warnings why didn't he and his administration do more, whether beef up security or close the consulate? why didn't it do more to protect those four americans who were killed? >> senator graham and i were in a classified briefing just i guess two weeks ago in washington when we came together with secretary clinton, the c.i.a. and others. they are engaged in a comprehensive investigation of what occurred here. that's what we've got to have. think back at history. it hasn't been that long ago we lost over 230 marines in the barracks in beirut, lebanon, under president reagan, these acts of terrorism are part of

living in a dangerous world. let's gather the evidence, let's make sure we understand exactly what did occur. but jumping to conclusions, darrell issa does a documentary dump on his website of sensitive information about those in libya helping keep america safe. it shows the lengths many will go to to politicize this situation. >> senator graham, is that what you're doing? >> thank god for a media in a asks questions and republican control of one branch of the government. if you left it up to this administration to inform the american people we would believe this was a riot spurred by a video. there was no mob, no riot. i'm convinced this will go down in history as one of the most major breakdowns of national security in a long time. exhibit a of a failed strategy.

the consulate had been attacked twice. everybody else left but us, we refused additional security requests because we wanted to normalize relationships. on september 11, the day of heightened concerned for america, the anniversary of our september 11 attack, that consulate was attacked over seven hours, there were no land forces available. no air power was sent to help these people for over seven hours. after the attack, you had one distorted explanation. graham, we're going to get to the accounts in a moment. i want to press my question with you, why didn't, with all these warnings. we had repeated memos from the embassador, repeated questions from the security -- requests from the team on the ground. why didn't the administration do more to protect these people? >> that question will be answered when we gather the information together. let me also.

>> senator, a skeptic could say guess when the investigation is going to end? sometime after election. >> shouldn't this investigation be done in a thorough, professional and complete way? as senator graham can tell you, when we sat down for the classified briefing, they said it was days before we get put our investigative team on the ground. >> doesn't that give you an indication of how dangerous it was? >> of course it was dangerous. we lost three americans, or four americans. look at the situation on the ground afterwards when the libyans demonstrated in the streets in support of the united states. 80s volatile situation, it is always easier the day after to say how you could have won that football game. but what it boils down to is let's get the facts together. this idea of chairman issa, he's going to dump the names in public of libyans risking their lives to support america and keep us safe in an effort to get

a politic cal toehold is unacceptable. >> let's move on to the question of the shifting story after the fact. the president said in the debate this week on the day after the attack on september 12, that he called it an act of terror. here's what actually happened in the rose garden. >> yesterday, four of these extraordinary americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in benghazi. rereject all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others. of course yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. no act of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation. >> senator graham, we did it that way to show there was a gap

between various things he discussed. did his team call this an act of terror from the start and do you believe they were playing politics with the way they spin out the store. >> i believe this administration has a history of playing politics with foreign policy. this is the administration that leaked the details of the bin laden raid to make them look good, cyber attacks against iran, the underwear bomber plot was foiled and they leaked the details of the double agent that put our allies at risk and operatives at risk. the question is would an administration to leaked detailed classification information over a series of weeks to create a narrative they're strong on policy, would they deceive and deny? the reason we don't want to admit it was an al qaeda inspired attack seen coming for months when the british and red

cross and everybody left but us undercuts the narrative of killing bin laden and the wars receding, this is exhibit a of a failed foreign policy. al-qaeda is alive and well in libya, iraq, syria and the wars are not receding. what happened in benghazi is a case study in failure at every phase. what they did after the attack i think is just absolutely unacceptable. they tried to confuse, delay and deny and create a narrative this was a spontaneous event when it was not. the truth is the benghazi, libya consulate was a death trap long in the making and it's failed presidential leadership. >> senator durbin, despite what the president says he did, his team clearly refused to call it an act of terror for at least a week. >> this is not a case of protest directed at the united states.

at large or u.s. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive. >> it was a spontaneous reaction to what just transpired in chiro as a consequence of the video. >> during the second debate, the president said he was offended by any suggestion he or his administration played politics. how do you explain the continued refusal to call it terrorism even as the evidence grew that it was terrorism. >> look at the article by david ignatius. he puts on the record the c.i.a. posting, the information they sent to washington, after our embassador and others were killed. they said, they believe it had something to do with the video but they would gather the evidence to be sure. then of course over the next few days more information came in. that was an indication the fog of war as they say was operative in this situation. what i find hard to accept, i have to disagree with senator

graham s this notion about the president's foreign policy. the president has been a strong and steady leader. we have responsibly ended the war in iraq, we're going to end the war in afghanistan. osama bin laden is moldering in a watery grave and we've put enough pressure on iran with the sanctions regime that they want to sit down and talk. these all positive developments moving toward a more stable world when we faced threats of terrorism every direction. >> senator durbin, i hate to interrupt but we're running out of time. if -- your quite right, there is a report that the c.i.a. put out talking points that said this was a spontaneous demonstration. if that was the best intelligence, why does president obama claim he called it terror the day after?

>> well, of course it involving an act of terror, whether it was as a result of a spontaneous demonstration or something planned. this just is unacceptable that you would attack another embassy and kill the embassador. it's terrorism in any form. >> his administration refused to say it for the first week. >> of course not. let me try to channel candy crowley for a moment. this president did say acts of terror. you can play the tape on fox any way you wish but he said it and it was an act of terror and we were waiting to find out the motivation and driving force behind it. we aim to get to the bottom of it and as the president said, hold those accountable who did it. >> senator graham. >> chris, this was not a spontaneous riot. there was never a mob. there a video of the consulate. nobody was there. embassador stevens met the turkish embassador. there wasn't a soul around. it was a seven hour planned

attack, intel was al-qaeda was on the rise. everybody else left but us, the c.i.a. chief says this was a militia attack within 24 hours. the president of libya said it was an al qaeda attack. a rocket it falling apart, bin laden is dead, al-qaeda is on the rise. go to the training camps in iraq. 32,000 people have been killed while we do nothing. islam i can extremist are infiltrating syria. as for iran, they have quadruple of amount of enriched uranium. nothing is working, the whole region's falling apart leading from behind is a failure. and overselling the death of bin laden caught up with him in libya. >> now i feel like one of the moderators. senator graham, senator durbin, thanks for joining us.

we'll see if the candidates do as well as you did. >> former south dakota senator george mcgovern died that morning, the democratic nominee for president in 1972 lose to go richard nixon. he was 90 years old. next, the granddaddy of all polling helps us sort out the conflicting numbers on the presidential horse race.

the gallup organization as polled presidential races since 1936. the latest survey is attracting a lot of attention. the poll shows romney leading

obama 51% to 45%. in comparison, real clear politics average shows a dead heat with obama leading by one tenth of a point. joining us, frank newport. how do you explain the fact your poll is so out of line with seven others national polls which show obama with a small lead or romney with a lead of just one point? >> well, there are many different explanation. we spend most of our time looking at our own method doling, how we do it. it's a seven day rolling average of the one you quoted. a large sample size. 3500 registered voters, 2700 likely voters in the sample. we don't spend time looking at the methodology of other polls. if we had been here a week ago we would have said the race was dead even ourselves but night by night with our large samples

we've even romney move out to the 51-45 seven day average. that's what we're showing among likely voters nationally. registered voters is closer to even. >> you had a poll this week of 12 battleground states showing romney leading by four points in the 12 battleground states. 50-46. the gender gap among women was gone, obama leading by 49% to 48. most polls show obama leadingly more in the battleground states with a bigger lead among women. >> that was a couple weeks ago when that field work was done so that's ancient history. things change week-to-week. nationally now, in the large sample poll, obama has a 7-point lead among women, down from '08 but nevertheless he's

maintaining his strength among women proportionately. his bigger problem, obama's, is he's lost more among men. >> the obama camp not surprisingly is pushing back hard saying your polls are, quote, way out of line and have deep flaws. how do you respond to the obama campaign? >> well that's not unusual, going back to dr. gallup who founded our company in 1936, he found heated commentary from either side on polls and we found it in the six election cycles. people come at you if they don't like the results. we don't have deep flaws, we're transparent with a team of methodologists and ask scientists. we just added more cell phones to take into the account the growing number of people who don't talk on land lines.

our methodology is extremely solid. we're open about how we do it. so i would say what we're doing is great and not the unusual that people would fight back that don't hike what you find. >> let's talk and get into the weeds. people seem interested in polling methodology. the big complaint made about the gallup poll is how you judge who's a likely voter. they say you put too much emphasis on how enthusiastic is voter is and may overstate the effect of a big event. the first debate which may have boosted one side, in this case, romney's supporters and depressed another supporter, obama supporters. what about the argument -- therefore we see swings based on enthusiasm or intensity based on the campaign. >> how you isolate like likely

voters is a fascinating question. enthusiasm isn't one of the questions asked when we measure likely voters. we use seven questions we've tweaked including questions about knowing where people vote or how you vote, if you vote by mail. how much attention you pay to the campaign, how much thought you've given, how certain you are to voting your own self definition and your history of voting, which we take into account for young people. we put that together and isolate likely voters. it can be susceptible to the environment but that's the whole event. if events in the environment cause one group or another to become more likely to vote, that's what it reflects. when we have a democratic incumbent as we do now running for reelection, likely voters make a difference. in 1996, had all voters voted based on our estimate, clinton would have beat dole by 15 points and he only won in the

high single turnouts. in 1980, another democrat ran and of course when the dust settled the, reagan won more than we or anybody else said because the republicans were energized. likely voters trying to take into account all these factors i just mentioned about who is going to show up and who isn't is extremely important, particularly in a election like this. >> let's talk about the other big controversy, and this is for all pollsters, the question of how do you weight by party. what percentage of republicans and democrats. some say do you use a 2008 model as to what the percentage of republicans and democrats are or do you use a ten model? how do you weight by party? >> we do not weight by party at all. we never have and don't now. party identification fluctuates just like who you vote for. we let that float.

whatever people tell us when we say, as we say of gallup, as of today, do you consider yourself republican, independent or democrat, that's what we measure at the end but we make no effort to weight by it. there are no national numbers on party identifications. census doesn't measure party identification, the exit polls are flawed. nobody things nothing will have changed over four years. you don't have to register in some states so there's no national registry. we know what age should be and gender because the census measures that. >> let me interrupt for a second. this is the thing that critics ask, if we see a poll 39% democrats and 30% republicans, that doesn't mean it's biased or skewed? >> no. that's like saying you see a poll that shows obama up nine points over romney, is that biased or skewed in it may be that poll has a spurt, a margin

of error but usually if the ballot is going to one direction, the party will follow behind it. again, partied just as much and attitude as who you are going to vote for. most of the major national polls do not weight by party i.d. because that's a concept which doesn't have a lot of science. >> frank, with a little over a minute left, as we look at this race 16 days out, where do you see it? >> we don't make predictions at gallup. i told you a week ago, we had it even. now we have romney up but that movement suggested it could move the other way over the next week or two. as of today, romney and the national level has an edge. all the swing state polls and individual states are hard to make sense of but they look close. right now i would say we have two weeks to go and a big debate. >> looking over the long history of gallup polling a6-point lead,

16 days before an election, how solid is that? >> well, not solid at all in the sense things can change. it changed were a week ago and we might talk to you next sunday and see where we stand. it could be different. things move, that's why they're still spending hundreds of millions of dollars to move voter. the campaign hasn't stopped. >> we thank you, thank you for talking with us today. we'll follow your poll and the others all the way to election day. my pleasure. next, the controversy over the benghazi attack keeps growing. we ask our sunday group how it will shape tomorrow's foreign policy debate and the rest of the campaign.

every piece of information we get as we got it we laid it out for the american people. >> for him to say every piece of information they got they laid out to the american people is one of the most disengenerous statements i've heard. >> president obama and senator mccain with different views about the attack in benghazi that killed four americans.

it's time four or sunday group. brit hume, fox news senior political analyst. liz more lan tess and -- >> before we get to libya, what do you make of the lead story in the "new york times" today the u.s. and iran agreed in principle to one-on-one talks after the election about iran's nuclear program? >> i don't know what to make of it. they agreed to talks and it was all set or the suggestion it was all set and then there was -- the white house said no, no, we haven't agreed in any final way to anything. so i think it remains to be seen. obviously the question is the one that senator graham raised, so we sit down and talk. they love to talk. meanwhile, the nuclear program goes forward and i think that's sort of where we come out on that. >> the way i read the article, liz, is the times agreed in principal and the denial from

the national security council was weak. they said we have not agreed to the actual talks but we're open to the idea which sounded like a nondenial-denial. do you think it's a boost for obama and helps in the debate, the idea well we may have this breakthrough and my policies are working? >> it will give him a talking point in the debate. i don't know that he'll classify it as a breakthrough begin there are a lot of questions about what it means. the way the obama campaign has been trying to frame the iran argument against romney is we're doing everything we can to not go to war and he's the one who would possibly take us to war. they're trying to emphasize there's not a lot of difference between what romney is saying and obama is saying unless romney is saying we should go to war. it help obama flush out his argument but i would be surprised if he classified it as a huge breakthrough. >> switch to go libya, two big developments in the story this

week, first we found out that u.s. embassador chris stevens -- you can see them on the screen, a series of memos to the state department over the last few months ago repeatedly for more security and reporting how dangerous libya was. can the president fairly be held responsible for the fact that we failed to protect our people there? >> look, an american embassador and three other americans were killed by al-qaeda affiliated individuals in a country we helped and they did nothing to secure the situation. we had no marines to guard or embassador and didn't pay attention to what was happening on the ground. we also had an intelligence station nearby that was overrun. the consulate torched. it's a hugh mill humiliation for the united states and it gives the sense as the turmoil goes on

in the arab world, we're not on top of things and shaping it in a hopeful way. we're in retreat and it's bad for the country and bad for the administration. >> juan, on the question about what they could have done beforehand to save these guys' lives, when you hear security people on the ground in libya were asking over and over for and now we had the memo saying how dangerous the situation was in benghazi and libya, how responsible can be administration are held for fail to go respond? >> both president obama and secretary clinton have said they're in charge and they're responsible. the buck stops here. in realistic terms any request for additional security is not going to be to the secretary of state. the testimony on capitol hill indicated i believe charlene lamb, one of the undersecretaries in charge said it got the as high as her and

she made a determination. i add there's an important distinction between tripoli, the capital, and benghazi. according to the testimony, even with additional forces in place, remember, additional forces, the question was for tripoli, not benghazi, that the heavy armor could not have been stopped by a fewer additional men on the ground. >> did you want to say -- >> some element of added security would have stayed with the embassador. he's the person -- >> he asked for more body guards. >> exactly. we can't know what effect that would have had on that night that, dreadful night in benghazi. the second point is the woman at the state department who made the call was acting, the framework of policy. the policy toward libya was, attitude was, this was now a country of friendlies. we helped depose the hated

dictator and we normalized the situation, we had good ties. libya was a success story. so the idea of sending in extra security because the place was in bad shape would be against that story line. so one can under stand how a senior official would be hesitant and might have resisted doing that. it was said the fall ooh you're was not due to the lack of money, so the attempts to blame it on stinginess in congress didn't work well. this was a major security and i think intelligence failure and it grows to some extent out of attitude by the. >> there was a specific memo in march from the security personnel in tripoli to the state department talking about the effort by state to change --

to transition from a emergency to a normalized situation. there does seem to have been that move. i want to talk about the other development this week. that is we know the c.i.a. and this is what dick durbin referred to, put out talking points on september 15, the day before susan rice went on the sunday shows, and here's what c.i.a. said. the demonstration ins benghazi were spontaneously inspired and evolved into a assault against the consulate and annex. there are indications extremists participated in the demonstrations. does that get embassador rice off the hook? was she following her brief? >> this is what rice has said all along, even before the talking points came out we knew there was a c.i.a. intelligence assessment saying that that had been given to the hill and rice and others and she was reporting on the best information she had been given at the time.

i think to some extent one thing that has happened is i feel like the debate has shifted a little bit recently from the -- all the questions about what the exactly the administration said in the aftermath and when they changed their story which, to some extent, i think romney has scored points but it seems like a political argument to a lot of voters i imagine and as we saw, obama was able to turn it around in the last debate but the questions, the fact the debate seems to shift more to questions about what happened in the run-up to the attack and what the failings may have been romney will be on stronger ground there. >> let me just bring in bill quickly. do you think that gets susan rice off the hook? >> not really. it doesn't get the administration off the hook. the administration misunderstood what happened even though they were on the phone with the state department. there was no demonstration, a, and the video had nothing to do

with it. what was the point what have susan rice said? the video, the video, the video. what did president obama say two weeks later? six times he mentioned the video. once he mentioned al-qaeda. >> the c.i.a. talking points are almost inexplicable in light of the fact the state department knew in real time what was happening and had to have known there was no protest such as those spoken of, that the whole thing was inconsistent with what the state department knew. the c.i.a. can put out talking points but an official with the state department the was in a position none better and i suspect she did. >> i'm sorry. we're out of time. we have to take a break. when we come back, we'll discuss what to look for in the final 16 days in the race for the white house.

you've heard of the new deal. you've heard of the square deal, the fair deal. mitt romney's trying to give you a sketchy deal. >> they have no agency for agenda for the future. no agenda for america. no agenda for the second term. it's a good thing, they won't have a second term. >> president obama and governor romney continuing to attack in advance of their final debate monday in florida. we're back with the panel. the early indications from the polls are as heated as it was, the second presidential debate, the town hall, had very little impact on the polls. it didn't move voters and the majority of voters seemed to have made up their mind. short of a major blunder, what do you expect in terms of the

impact of tomorrow's poll? >> tomorrow's poll? >> the debate. >> the second debate hasn't moved voters a lot but it may have symptom romney's momentum. you start to see an increase for president obama now as mitt romney maintains the lead. you're looking at advertising, states like florida still are in play and you see lots of advertising there. some of the southern states now, north carolina in particular, you start to see i think romney take a hold but people are looking at the swing states and obama retains the lead, even in states like iowa. >> let's look at the latest real clear politics electoral map. they average the most recent polls state-by-state. this looks like a -- i don't know, a point list painting by

george siron the. it shows romney with 206 electoral votes. obama in shades of blue. the number of doesup states in gray are growing, more and more tossup states. ten states, it takes 270 electoral votes to be elected president. what do you make of that map and the number of states that are too close to call are growing. >> the most striking thing about the map when i first saw it was holy cow, romney has a -- romney-ryan have a slight lead in electoral votes. that's the first time that's occurred in this cycle. that confirms i think the trend that's been evident since the first debate and you know, these -- and the question really is whether this lead, small or large, depending on whose poll you look at that romney and ryan seem to be enjoying in many of

the polls, will soon translate into places like ohio, where they don't appear to be ahead. i don't think he got a mere bounce, romney, out of the first debate. i think he got a surge and it may have faded some but it persists and we see it in the polling. if it continues, he may be on a course to upset the president and win the election. >> i was talking to a top obama advisor this week and he suggested, he didn't say it but suggested, that the southeastern swing states of florida and north carolina and virginia are beginning to move romney and they now have what seems to be their last stand, their final -- this be the obama camp, their final firewall in the midwest, ohio, iowa and wisconsin. >> absolutely. it's ironic because not long ago we talked about how romney was having problems in ohio and maybe should pull out and find another path. now you're hearing talk about

whether obama should pull out of florida. there was a piece in the "new york times" about that this weekend. so i think in that sense, the midwest is really where this is going to be won. although romney does have ties to victory out ohio, he would like to win ohio because it threads the needle close if he doesn't. so far that has been obama's firewall. he's had a lead in that state through the entire campaign cycle and he still is ahead, not by as much. romney's narrowed the gap but pretty much every poll shows obama ahead in ohio and that makes romney's lift harder. >> bill, starting with the debate tomorrow night what, do romney and obama need to do in the final 16 days? >> two different polls over the last few days have romney down one in ohio so he gained a lot of in ohio. i love people always say he's behind in ohio. we've just seen him move by five to seven points. he could move another three our

four. he's generally outperformed. its hard to believe he's going to trail his national vote in ohio by -- what romney has to do tomorrow is be presidential. less the challenger, less the prosecutor and be the next president. a foreign policy debate, voters don't have checklists. argue agree with me on abortion, on guns, are you for tax cuts or saving medicare. most voters have a kind of firm view about what should be done and negotiating strategy for iran. they want to see, especially for a challenger to win, they want to see him as someone who is up to being president. with the judgment, maturity, knowledge, toughness but sort of soundness, to be president. i think for romney, if he can be the next president of the united states and not a guy who is arguing with the current president and challenging him and fact checking, if he could

be presidential, he's in pretty good shape. >> how do you think he should play libya? >> i think he should stipulate a terrible thing happened, which has been a setback, and stipulate that the obama administration hasn't handled it well but be more about himself. more about what he would do over the next four years and less picking on every flaw of the obama administration. it's hard to resist when you see awe those flaws and wants to prosecute the case but the key tomorrow is less of a prosecutor and more of the next the. >> if you were advising president obama, what would you say he should do tomorrow night? >> let me say i thought bill was on target. what i hear from the top people in both campaigns is they don't think they're going back to libya with the same power that some conservatives would like, given how big that issue has been. i think for president obama, it has to be that he has a greater

depth of knowledge about foreign policy having been the president, having dealt with foreign leaders. if he can demonstrate romney has no experience, big advantage. he has to speak to young people and women. in all that we've had here today, your interview with frank, what you see is that -- frank newport from a gap lineup. what you see from young people and women, they're key to the election. if president obama is able to say this is a war monger, he lacks the sophistication to negotiate, to pull us out of wars. that will be a winning hand for the president. >> he and biden both made that claim that romney's going to get us into another war. >> it's speaking to americans generally who are war weary but specifically to american women. >> and how does -- bill, how does romney handle that? >> read ronald reagan's answer,

when the first question was, governor reagan, your opponent accused offing being a risk taker, you're likely to get the us into war. reagan said i'm for peace constraints. i've got children and grandchildren and the last thing i want to do is see them fight abroad. here's why my policies are less risky. >> and here's what obama would say, what exactly ever the differences between my policies and yours? even with regard to israel, the answer is not much. >> that's a win for romney. >> you can't have it both ways, a romney a war among monger? >> that's not a problem. he'll say if the iranians want to negotiate, i'll be a tougher negotiator than president obama. >> well, thank you, panel. focus, you don't need to watch the debate tomorrow night because you saw it here. check out panel plus where the group picks up on our website, foxnewssunday.com.

we'll post the video before noon eastern and follow us on twitter @"fox news sunday." next, we go on the trail. [ male announcer ] if it wasn't for a little thing called the computer, we might still be making mix tapes. find this. pause this. play this. eject this. write this. it's like the days before esurance express lane™. you had to find a bunch of documents just to get a car insurance quote. now express lane finds your driving info with just one click, saving time to be nostalgic about the days before express lane. thank you, insurance for the modern world. esurance. now backed by allstate. click or call.

>>. >> chris: the presidential campaign this week featured a knock down, dragged out debate, invention of new words and some

laughs at a white my dinner all to be found on the trail. >> i had a question. question was. >> do you want me to answer? i'm happy to answer the question. >> i love these debates. these are great. >> he is going to wait until after the election to explain a plan to you. they don't have a pleasant surprise in store for you. >> president obama is not telling you what his second term plan would be. >> romney's plans were all any sketchy. i don't think they were just sketch yes, i think they were extra sketchy. >> the remarks are brought to you by the letter "o" and the number $16 trillion. >> after my trip in 2008 i was attacked as a celebrity because

i was so popular with our allies overseas. i have to say i am impressed with how well governor romney has avoided that problem. >> if you say you are for equal pay for equal work. you keep refusing to say whether you would sign a bill, you may have romnezia. >> they reduce it to silly word games. just watch it. the obama campaign has become the incredible shrinking campaign. >> chris: just two weeks from tuesday the candidates stop talking and we the voters finally get our say. this program note. tune into this fox station and fox news charges at 9:00 p.m. for the final presidential debate. that is it for today. have a great week and we'll see